Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Rahul Kumar, husband of a woman who allegedly committed suicide over a dowry dispute, was charged under Sections 80(2), 238(b) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for her murder. He applied for bail, arguing that he was implicated merely because of his marital relationship to the deceased and that he has a clean record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing his responsibility as husband and the seriousness of the alleged offence. The court noted that the trial is already at the prosecution‑evidence stage, with four of eight charge‑sheeted witnesses examined and further summons issued. Considering the advanced stage of the trial and the petitioner’s relationship to the victim, the court refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offence and his relationship to the deceased.
- Whether the stage of trial (prosecution evidence with witnesses examined) warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 238(b), 3(5), 80(2)
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- murder
- husband
- criminal procedure
- witness examination
- trial stage
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69488 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2024 Thana- BHAGWANGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Son of Lalendra Yadav Resident of Village- Nadauna, P.S.-
Bhagwanganj, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheonandan Pandit, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 80 (2), 238 (b) and 3 (5) of B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner along with others
committed the murder of the informant’s daughter for non-fulfillment
of demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been made an accused in this case only on account of
the fact that he happens to be the husband of the deceased, however,
the deceased had committed suicide and there is no specific
allegation against the petitioner who is in custody since 02.11.2024
with clean antecedent. Further, charges have been framed in this case
on 15.09.2025 and the case is pending at the stage of prosecution
evidence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69488 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition on
the ground that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased who is
primarily responsible for the welfare of the wife.
6. A report dated 27.01.2026 with regard to the stage of
the case indicates that four out of eight charge sheeted witnesses
were already examined after framing of charge on 15.09.2025 and
summons etc. have already been issued to the witnesses for their
examination.
7. In such view of the matter, taking into account that the
petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the trial is progressing
with four witnesses already having been examined, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage. However, the
learned trial court is directed the conclude the case, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of six months.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…